For a change of pace, let’s talk about Roman Reigns! Specifically, let’s talk about what it means to be a draw and the guy on top of WWE’s virtual monopoly.
Yesterday, Sean talked about Roman Reigns and whether he should be considered a “draw,” especially based on the man’s own definition of the word. Roman’s argument was that, because he gets a big reaction every night, he’s done his job. He equates drawing people into the building with the big reactions he’s getting.
This seems, to me, disingenuous though I don’t blame Roman for it. He’s just sticking to the micro-managed script he’s been given to work with.
It’s disingenuous because countless interviews by Triple H, Vince McMahon and others have talked about how there is no “one guy” but a host of “top guys” who carry the company. If that’s true then one can’t really credit (or discredit) Roman Reigns’ ability to “draw” people to the building. It can’t both be the WW logo and the starpower of Roman Reigns.
This blurred distinction between “the top guy” and “the brand” is not new to Roman Reigns, however. CM Punk alluded to this in his infamous pipebomb, when he expressed his frustrations about never being “the guy” the way John Cena was, while also describing WWE as a wheel that will keep on spinning no matter who is on top. If it’s a wheel, then there is no top, is there?
The fact is there is a reliable WWE “brand” that is bankable and reliable, never gets sick, never gets suspended, and never retires. It’s the logo that makes the Citris Bowl, US Bank Stadium, the Superdome and others place big money bids on hosting WrestleMania every year. They’re not paying all that money for Roman Reigns or Daniel Bryan or John Cena, because there’s no guarantee those guys will be on the show. The only guarantee is that the show will be on the show. You can’t count on any wrestler, but you can count on the WW logo being there with somebody.
On the other hand, somebody is going to be at the top of the mountain. And for as long as Vince wants to push him, that somebody will stay at the top. It’s not about popularity with live audiences, merch sales or even TV ratings; it has always ever been about the Audience of One. Don’t believe me? Consider the infamous “creative has nothing for you” Spring of 2002 that made Steve Austin walk out. If Vince had wanted to continue with Austin as his top star, creative would have found something for him.
Whenever whoever at the top of the mountain leaves their perch (either by their choosing or Vince’s), they will instantly be replaced and that proverbial wheel will keep on spinning.
So I take issue with the black and white, cut and dry handwaving of Roman’s negative reactions, and the idea that “if people are booing it means they care and that’s all that matters.” Nonsense; that idea wasn’t true with Hogan, who was dropped for Ultimate Warrior once fans started to bore with him. It wasn’t true of Bret who was dropped for a long list of just about anyone else Vince could think of despite the constant cheers he was getting. It doesn’t apply to Austin since he got in and got out (1998-2001ish) before fans had time to cool to him.
It does however apply to John Cena.
And what’s the difference between Cena’s time on top and the eras of Hogan, Hart and Austin? Cena’s came in a time when WWE had a virtual monopoly on the pro wrestling market. Even though they go out of their way not to call themselves pro wrestling, they have such a stranglehold on the idea, WWE is what anyone thinks of when they hear the term.
With that level of dominance comes a degree of relaxation and complacency. Simply put: WWE can afford to have a top guy that is not universally beloved (which Cena was not by a 50/50 margin for most of his run on top, and which Roman Reigns is not by a far worse degree today).
And with WWE’s virtual monopoly comes a level of angst (and the discussions arguments that ensue) over who is being pushed (and who isn’t) to an extent that wasn’t present a generation ago, when bigger competition existed that could provide a fresh start for talent seemingly “held back” (as their fans would argue).
That angst is focused like a laserbeam at the top of the lonely mountain of WWE’s monopoly. If Finn Balor or Dean Ambrose had given an interview saying that Seth Rollins had “grown as a performer in every area” and that he’d “developed into a real locker room leader, which wasn’t always the case” no one would think twice of it.
But when Roman reigns says those things (as he did in an interview with Alex McCarthy of Give Me Sports), it becomes a headline. If Daniel Bryan had said he’d only watch CM Punk’s next UFC fight “If it lasts more than 30 seconds” it would have been a B-story good for a chuckle. When Roman Reigns says it, people’s eyebrows go up. Why? Because he’s at the top of the mountain, the lonely mountain of WWE’s monopoly.
When Roman says the very fact that he’s so-often talked about is proof that he belongs in his spot, I can’t help but remember last summer, when articles about Jinder Mahal were constant on sites such as Cagesideseats. Jinder came out to showers of boos and huge reactions to his matches and wins. Was he a draw? Were people putting down money specifically to see him even if it was him in a ten minute promo battle with a broomstick? No. You had that with Hogan for a time. Austin for sure. Even half the fanbase would’ve turned out to see Cena vs Broomstick. But no one was paying to see Jinder, not to see him win (since he wasn’t a babyface) and not to see him lose (though he was a heel world champ).
Fans were paying to see the brand and they booed Jinder because they didn’t want to see him (at least not in that capacity), they wanted to see the rest of the brand. That’s not to throw a blanket over the whole WWE Universe. There was a chunk of fans in India who loved seeing him (and that’s their prerogative!); they just weren’t enough to drown out the boos that rained on him every week.
And so it is with Roman.
from Cageside Seats – All Posts https://ift.tt/2KtLLiz
from WordPress https://ift.tt/2IqJeFt
via IFTTT
Comments
Post a Comment